students’ motivations to become teachers: fit-choice … 2016 ijqre.pdf182 a. suryani et al. the...

Int. J. Quantitative Research in Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2016 179

Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Students’ motivations to become teachers: FIT-Choice findings from Indonesia

Anne Suryani*, Helen M.G. Watt and Paul W. Richardson Faculty of Education, Monash University, Wellington Rd, Victoria 3800, Australia Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Abstract: The motivations for undertaking teacher education and perceptions about the teaching profession were examined among 802 fourth-year undergraduate teacher education students at two public and two private universities in Jakarta and Yogyakarta, Indonesia (M = 21, SD = 2.31, 83.16% women). Following translations and piloting, participants completed the factors influencing teaching choice scale (FIT-Choice; Watt and Richardson, 2007) with culturally relevant factors added for: religious influences, second job (time for casual work), tuition fee for teacher education (cheaper), admission into teacher education (less competitive), time for teacher education studies (shorter) and media dissuasion. The extended scale proved valid and reliable with some modifications (e.g., item teaching qualification modified into teaching certification). Social utility values, prior teaching and learning experiences, intrinsic career value and religious influences were the main motivations for choosing teacher education, followed by secure progression prospects and ‘second job’. Choosing teacher education as a fallback career was lowest rated, and correlated positively with all teacher education factors. Teaching was perceived as a highly expert career, with high social status.

Keywords: teacher education students; career motivations; professional perceptions; religious influence; career aspirations; FIT-Choice scale.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Suryani, A., Watt, H.M.G. and Richardson, P.W. (2016) ‘Students’ motivations to become teachers: FIT-Choice findings from Indonesia’, Int. J. Quantitative Research in Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.179–203.

Biographical notes: Anne Suryani holds a PhD in Educational Psychology and MEd by Research from Monash University, and MSc and BSocSc in Communication Science from the University of Indonesia. She has been awarded a number of awards and scholarships throughout her academic journey, including the 2014 Mollie Holman Doctoral Medal from Monash University. She has experience of large-scale survey research examining Indonesian students’ motivations to become teachers. Her research interests include teaching motivations, new media and learning, and cross-cultural communication.

180 A. Suryani et al.

Helen M.G. Watt is a Professor in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, and an Australian Research Council Research Fellow 2011–2015. Previously, she has served on the Faculties of the University of Michigan, University of Western Sydney, University of Sydney, and Macquarie University. Her interests include motivation, gendered educational and occupational choices, motivations for teaching, teacher self-efficacy, longitudinal research, and quantitative methods. She has received national and international research awards, attracted substantial external funding, published in leading journals, and received international recognition. Her current research work has implications for redressing the gender imbalance in mathematics related careers, and for supporting the career and professional development of beginning teachers. She is currently an Associate Editor for AERA Open and serves on several editorial boards.

Paul W. Richardson is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, and Associate Dean in Research. He previously served as Associate Dean in Education. He has previously served on the Faculties of the University of Michigan and University of Sydney. His interests concern the professional development and socialisation experiences of beginning teachers; teaching and learning in higher education; academic literacy; youth identity development; and qualitative and mixed-methods research. He has attracted substantial competitive funding from Australian Research Council Discovery Grants to conduct large-scale longitudinal studies with beginning teachers, published in leading journals, and received international recognition.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Teaching as a career: perspectives of Indonesian future teachers’ presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference, Adelaide, 1–5 December 2013.

1 Introduction

The quality of teachers significantly influences students’ learning outcomes (World Bank, 2010), thus many countries have focused on recruiting, training, and retaining sufficient numbers of qualified teachers to improve educational outcomes (Hattie, 2009; UNESCO, 2010). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2011) countries have been working together to improve teacher recruitment and preparation, to make teaching an attractive career choice, and to provide high-quality initial teacher education.

The Indonesian setting is different from Western countries in terms of culture and educational system; not much research has been conducted about teachers in Indonesia. Teacher education graduates may have opportunities in both teaching and non-teaching occupations; also, cultural values, particularly religion, influence students’ decisions about whether to enter teacher education. Teaching is highly respected as a noble profession; ‘teacher’ is translated in Bahasa Indonesia as guru, a person with knowledge or expertise who is expected to set a good example to society. There are two main problems in Indonesian teacher education: the distribution of teachers across the nation is unequal and the quality of Indonesian teachers needs to be improved (Chang et al., 2014; Jalal et al., 2009; World Bank, 2010). This paper, founded on the FIT-Choice scale (Watt and Richardson, 2007), focuses on two questions:

Students’ motivations to become teachers 181

1 What is the validity and reliability of the FIT-Choice scale and additional culturally specific factors in the Indonesian teacher education context?

2 What are students’ motivations for entering into teacher education?

The factors influencing teaching choice (FIT-Choice) framework was developed precisely for the purpose of measuring teaching motivations, underpinned by a theoretically comprehensive model, encompassing the range of previously empirically identified teaching motivations, and using a psychometrically rigorous instrument. The FIT-Choice framework is based on the expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation (Eccles [Parsons] et al., 1983; Wigfield and Eccles, 2000) which posits that people’s choices, persistence and performance can be explained by their beliefs about how well they will perform an activity and the extent to which they value the activity. Expectancy is defined as people’s beliefs and judgements about their capabilities to perform a task successfully. Value means people’s beliefs about the reasons they might engage in certain tasks.

Four motivational components of value are identified: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value and cost (Eccles et al., 1983). Attainment value is the personal importance of performing well on certain tasks, where people engage in certain activities which are important for them with the intention of accomplishing their goals which are consistent with their identities (Wigfield and Cambria, 2010). Intrinsic or interest value is the pleasure that people gain from doing the activity when people intrinsically value an activity they engage fully and persist in it, resulting in enjoyment (Wigfield and Cambria, 2010). Utility value refers to the usefulness of the task for individuals in relation to their current and future goals, including career goals. Cost is the negative aspect of doing certain tasks, for instance, performance anxiety, fear of failure, effort needed to achieve a goal, or losing options because of making one choice rather than another (Wigfield and Eccles, 1992). Eccles et al. (1983) emphasise that cost is an important component for choices although there has been little work on this value component until recently (for exceptions, see Conley, 2012; Perez et al., 2014; Watt, in press). Both positive and negative task characteristics influence choices and all choices are believed to have cost linked to them because one choice may eliminate alternatives (Wigfield and Cambria, 2010).

1.1 The FIT-Choice model

Student teachers’ motivations have been extensively investigated. Many researchers have applied qualitative methods (e.g., Gao and Trent, 2009; Malderez et al., 2007; Stuart, 2000), while others have developed surveys but rarely reported the reliability and validity of their measures (e.g., Jarvis and Woodrow, 2005; Kyriacou and Kunc, 2007; Kyriacou et al., 2003; Wang, 2004). It is challenging to compare people’s motivations to become a teacher because each country has unique cultural, social and economic features. However, by employing the same set of measures it is possible to begin to compare findings across countries. This is the main reason for using an established theoretical and psychometric framework, the FIT-Choice scale which was initially developed in Australia (Richardson and Watt, 2006; Watt and Richardson, 2007, 2008), then widely applied in many countries.


The FIT-Choice framework (see Figure 1) consists of antecedent socialisation influences: prior teaching and learning experiences, social influences and social dissuasion. Social influences are defined as influences from family and friends in relation to the choice of a teaching career. In contrast, social dissuasion refers to influences from others to not choose a teaching career. These antecedent variables influence task perceptions, self-perceptions, task values and fallback career. Self-perceptions are about perceived teaching abilities; task perceptions include both task demand and task return components. Task demand taps participants’ perceptions regarding teachers’ required level of expertise and workload. Task return is the extent to which teaching is regarded as a well-respected profession, earning a good salary. With respect to expectancy-value theory, the difference between task demand and task return is considered as a cost (Watt and Richardson, 2007). The next part of the model involves task values, constituted by intrinsic value, social utility value and personal utility value. Intrinsic value measures participants’ personal interests and enjoyment to work as a teacher. Social utility value assesses future teachers’ desire to positively contribute to society by working as a teacher (containing first-order factors: shape future of children/adolescents, enhance social equity, make social contribution, and work with children/adolescents). Personal utility value consists of job security, time for family, and job transferability. Fallback career means that students chose teaching as their last-resort career because they were not accepted into their first career choice, or were uncertain of their future career.

Figure 1 Theoretical framework: Indonesian teacher education students’ motivation to choose a teaching career and a career plan

SELF-PERCEPTIONS Perceived teaching ability

TEACHER EDUCATIONa Tuition fee, admission, time

TASK PERCEPTIONS Task demand (expertise, difficulty) Task return (social status, salary)

VALUES Intrinsic value Social utility value (Enhance social equity, make social contribution, work with children/adolescents) Personal utility value (Job security, Job transferability, time for family, second joba, religious influencea)

Fallback career

SOCIALISATION INFLUENCES Prior teaching and learning experiences Social influences Social dissuasion Media dissuasiona

SATISFACTION WITH CHOICE

CAREER PLAN

Notes: Factor shape future of children/adolescents was omitted based on the CFA result. a Factors developed in the current study to include relevant cultural dimension in the Indonesian context.

Source: Adapted from Watt and Richardson (2007) ‘Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: development and validation of the FIT-Choice scale’, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 75, p.176.

The FIT-Choice scale was initially developed and validated in the Australian context by Watt and Richardson (2007) among teacher education students in Australia (N = 1,651) for the 12 motivation and 6 perception factors. Since then, it has been validated among samples from varying cultural settings overviewed below.


• In a comparative study, including Australia, the USA, Germany and Norway (Watt et al., 2012), strong factorial invariance indicated that the FIT-Choice scale could be similarly applied across settings with the exceptions of three factors. Two were omitted for reasons of reliability in two of the subsamples (job transferability α = .56 in Germany, .43 in Norway; fallback career α = .52 in the USA, .59 in Norway); job transferability was initially developed in the Australian context where teachers have opportunities to travel and work overseas, and fallback career may be less relevant in highly competitive teacher education programs such as in Norway. Shape future of children/adolescents posed a problem of collinearity in the German sample, being highly correlated with other social utility constructs in that subsample.

• A comparative study was conducted in the USA (English) and China (Mandarin Chinese translation), involving 542 student teachers in a university in southern China and 257 student teachers at a university in southwest US (Lin et al., 2012), and all items. The results confirmed acceptable construct validity across the two samples. Most Cronbach’s alpha values were adequate in both contexts, except fallback career was marginal in the US sample (α = .57) and job transferability in the Chinese sample (α = .58).

• In Germany (German translation), 1,287 student teachers came from five universities (König and Rothland, 2012). These researchers omitted job transferability due to its low reliability reported in the earlier German sample (Watt et al., 2012), but included fallback career (α = .59). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) indicated the FIT-Choice scale was construct valid and reliable in this sample.

• In Turkey (Turkish translation), 1,577 first-year student teachers were studying early childhood, primary and secondary teacher education programs across three universities (Kılınç et al., 2012). Items for job transferability were modified because of the different context (e.g., “to work in other European countries” instead of ‘travel overseas’). CFAs and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients provided evidence the scale was construct valid and reliable in that context.

• In a Croatian study (Croatian translation) of 374 first-year student teachers across three universities (Jugović et al., 2012), job transferability items were similarly modified and six items with low factor loadings were omitted to improve subscale reliabilities. CFA showed the FIT-Choice scale was construct valid.

• In Spain (Spanish translation), 851 student teachers from 11 universities participated (Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014). One job transferability item was again modified. CFAs indicated the FIT-Choice scale was construct valid; Cronbach alpha values were acceptable except for job transferability α = .58 and fallback career α = .54.

• In Switzerland (German and French translations), several scale modifications were made to suit the characteristics for a sample of inservice vocational teachers (N = 483; Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012). First, the researchers replaced ‘children and adolescents’ with ‘youth’. Job transferability was omitted because there is little geographical relocation of teachers in Switzerland (Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012). Fallback career was replaced by a new four-item factor, opportunity, since the participants were not in a situation to choose among several degrees but in a position to decide to switch to teaching or to stay as a practitioner. Shape future of youth and


make social contribution were combined due to high correlation, in both the French- and German- speaking samples. CFAs indicated good model fit in each sample. Cronbach’s alpha values for all factors in both translations were above .70 except for the new factor opportunity (α = .64), and perceptions of teaching as an expert career (α = .63) in the French translation.

In collectivist countries such as Turkey (Eren and Tezel, 2010; Kılınç et al., 2012; Topkaya and Uztosun, 2012) and China (Lin et al., 2012), social utility values appeared to be more prominent than intrinsic and ability motivations that were the highest-rated motivations in Western settings. Ability and intrinsic value motivations were dominant in samples from Australia (Richardson and Watt, 2006, 2014; Watt and Richardson, 2007, 2008; Watt et al., 2012), Switzerland (Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012), the USA and Norway (Watt et al., 2012), Germany (König and Rothland, 2012; Watt et al., 2012) and Canada (Klassen et al., 2011). In a Norwegian sample, social utility values were rated lowest, possibly due to participants’ belief that ‘strong egalitarian principles’ [Watt et al., (2012), p.803] were already applied in schools and in society more generally. In studies from Croatia (Jugović et al., 2012), Germany (König and Rothland, 2012) and the Netherlands (Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus, 2014), social utility values were rated high along with intrinsic value and ability. The mean ratings of social utility values in the FIT-Choice studies across different contexts are seemingly influenced by cultural factors.

Teaching was perceived as a highly skilled and demanding occupation in previous FIT-Choice findings from Australia (Watt and Richardson, 2007), Germany (König and Rothland, 2012), Turkey (Eren and Tezel, 2010; Kılınç et al., 2012), and Switzerland (Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012). Those who perceived teaching as a highly skilled occupation also tended to be more satisfied with their choice. Teaching status was rated low in Switzerland, quite low in Australia, Germany and the USA, and higher in Turkey. Returns from salary were perceived as moderate, except in Germany where the salary of teachers was higher in the international comparative study (Watt et al., 2012), which revealed that motivations for teaching tended to be similar across the four examined samples (from Australia, the USA, Germany and Norway); however, perceptions about the profession reflected objective cultural differences (Watt et al., 2012).

Findings from the current Indonesian context can add valuable new insights from this different setting. It was anticipated that Indonesian participants would rate social utility value factors highly, in tune with previous FIT-Choice studies reviewed from China and Turkey, also often categorised as collectivist. Research in collectivist cultures has indicated that people tend to fulfil goals and expectations of significant others (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Indonesian future teachers may also score high on job security since teaching can offer opportunities to become civil servants which provide for life-long benefits and a high level of job security.

1.2 The teaching context in Indonesia

Indonesia is an archipelago of 17,508 islands located in South East Asia. In 2014 there are approximately 237 million people living in Indonesia with 28.2% of them aged 14 years or younger (Statistics Indonesia, 2010). Since the implementation of the Teacher Law in 2005, teachers are required to complete a minimum academic qualification of a four-year post-secondary education or a bachelor degree, followed by one or two semesters of postgraduate professional training in teaching, and to pass a certification


test. With this teaching certification, graduates are eligible to apply for a civil servant position to secure permanent teaching at a school and to receive double the basic salary of non-certified teachers, life-long health benefits, and a pension.

The Indonesian government emphasises education as a priority and has started to improve the quality of education by allocating 20% of the annual national budget to the development of the education sector. This has been prompted by the pressing need to invest in more schools and for more teachers to adequately accommodate the high percentage of school-aged youth. According to the Education Law of 1989, Indonesian citizens must undertake a minimum of nine years of compulsory basic education, spending six years at elementary level and a further three years at junior secondary school. After undertaking another three years at senior secondary school, graduates may continue to college (also known as the academy or polytechnic) for one-, two-, or three-year diplomas, or undertake a bachelor degree at a university or institute. In 2013 the government introduced the 12-Year Compulsory Education Program and a new curriculum, requiring all students to attend primary, junior secondary and senior secondary schools.

The context of teacher education in Indonesia is quite different from similar programs in other countries, in terms of programs and tuition fees. Not every Indonesian university offers teacher education programs, but the government organises at least one public teacher education institution in each province. Most Indonesian teacher education programs, particularly in public universities, charge lower tuition fees compared with other programs of study. For example, in 2010 a student teacher at the State University of Jakarta paid tuition fees of approximately US$ 530–900 per year while a student at the University of Indonesia, which offers only non-teacher education programs, was required to pay approximately US$ 750–2,500 per year. Consequently, secondary graduates may place teacher education as a second option on their university applications in order to gain a university qualification at a reduced fee.

In Indonesia, it is acknowledged that teacher graduates have opportunities in both teaching and non-teaching occupations. For instance, English education graduates may choose to work as an English teacher or as an interpreter in a multinational company. It is widely presumed that a number of teacher education graduates may choose non-teaching occupations1. Another contextual difference is that cultural particularities, especially religious beliefs, may affect students’ decision to enter teacher education. Most religions in Indonesia highly respect teaching as a noble profession. Religion is a compulsory subject from primary until tertiary study. People are required to choose one religion, which is shown on the national identity card: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Confucianism. The majority are Muslims (87.18%), followed by Protestants (6.96%), Catholics (2.91%), Hindus (1.69%), Buddhists (0.72%), and others (0.54%) (Statistics Indonesia, 2010).

The importance of sociocultural forces that underlie individual differences in expectancies, ability self-concepts, and subjective task value is highlighted in the expectancy-value model (Wigfield et al., 2004). Different cultures provide different options and levels of freedom in making choices (Wigfield et al., 2004), and these cultural differences can influence the socialisation of motivated behaviours through differences in valued activities, valued goals and the extent to which family obligations influence children’s motivation and achievement (Wigfield et al., 2007). Culture frames individuals’ choices in relation to achievement-related behaviours such as educational focus, careers, and leisure activities (Wigfield et al., 2004). Investigating people’s


motivations to become teachers in different contexts offers comparisons of how sociocultural values and beliefs influence people’s career choices.

1.3 The FIT-Choice model in the Indonesian context

The Indonesian translation of the FIT-Choice scale consisted of all 12 motivational and 6 perception factors. In the original study, motivation items began with “I chose to become a teacher because…” but the current study used “I chose to enter teacher education because…”, considering that Indonesian teacher education students may be likely to choose a non-teaching career after completing study. Items for all factors were rated on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) as in the original FIT-Choice scale.

Indonesia has one of the largest and most diverse teacher workforces in the world (Chang et al., 2014) in a complex education system. Researchers have to be cautious when applying Western constructs directly to other contexts without examining their meaning and main assumptions from the point of view of the researched cultural backgrounds (Ho and Hau, 2014). Six contextually relevant motivation factors were added to take account of factors particular to the sociocultural context of Indonesia: tuition fee for teacher education, admission into teacher education, time for teacher education studies, religious influences, career progression prospects2,and second job; along with one perception factor: media dissuasion. Each is discussed in turn, below.

In Indonesia, the tuition fee for teacher education is less expensive and entrance to teacher education is less competitive than programs such as engineering, economics, medicine and law. In addition, many student teachers have informal teaching jobs during their study, such as work as private tutors, which may impact their time of study completion. As most teacher education students have working experience during their studies, the period after completing teacher education and securing a teaching position may be shorter.

Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world and each Indonesian citizen is expected to practise according to her/his religious beliefs. This was the main reason for including religious influences as a motivation in the measurement, considering most of the religions view teaching as a noble profession. The concept of career progression prospects was adopted from motivations for career choice (MCC) scale (Watt and Richardson, 2006) to include whether students chose teaching because it offers a clear career pathway and good promotion prospects which has been emphasised since 2005 when the Ministry of National Education of the Indonesian government improved teachers’ remuneration and career status.

In the original study ‘bludging’ (i.e., becoming a teacher to have a short working day and lengthy holidays, and to get by with little effort) was factorially indistinguishable from time for family (Watt and Richardson, 2007), although the current study aimed to check if bludging would emerge as a distinct factor in the Indonesian context. The concept of a second job was added to take account of the different educational contexts when compared with previous FIT-Choice study settings. Most schools in Indonesia start at 7 am and dismiss around 1 pm, and there is a one-month school holiday from the middle of June until the middle of July every year. Teachers are able to do other jobs after school hours and they have longer holidays than other comparable full-time professions. Similar to the concept of social dissuasion, media dissuasion was defined as influences from the mass media to not choose a teaching career. This was considered a possible influence given the ‘poor press’ teachers often receive in the Indonesian media.


Eight additional items were also developed under the original motivational factors. “Teachers can become a civil servant” and “teaching can provide a life-long career” were included under job security, because Indonesian teachers who have civil servant status have a stable salary, health benefits, and receive pensions after retirement. “My parents are teachers”, “I have relatives who are teachers”, “I have friends who are teachers”, and “I know people who are teachers” were added under social influences, considering that as a collectivist society, Indonesians tend to be influenced by significant others. “As a teacher I will have more time to do home duties” was added under time for family, due to the fact that most Indonesian schools finish in the afternoon. “I have had positive teaching experiences” was included in prior teaching and learning experiences, as it is common that teacher education students undertake casual or part-time teaching work prior to formal qualification. One job transferability item “Teaching will be a useful job for me to have when travelling” was modified to “I can choose where I teach”, as most Indonesian teacher education graduates would be likely to stay within the country as their teaching degrees are not internationally recognised.

2 Pilot study

2.1 Methodology

A pilot study was conducted during July to August 2011 to make a preliminary check of the reliability of the translated questionnaire (see Tables 1 and 2), and to determine whether participants understood the meaning of each item. Forty final-year student teachers from the Mathematics Education Program at the State University of Jakarta participated in the pilot study. The questionnaire was initially prepared in English, but translated from English to Bahasa Indonesia by two bilinguals (including the first author), then translated back into English by a third bilingual. The original and back-translated versions were discussed by the translators to verify accuracy and resolve equivalence. In the translation process, words were modified to suit the Indonesian teacher education system. For instance, an item under job transferability “I chose teacher education because a teaching qualification is recognised everywhere”, the word ‘qualification’ was translated into ‘certification’ because in the Indonesian context ‘qualification’ could only refer to a bachelor degree. Because teachers are required to complete a bachelor study followed by a teaching certification, the term ‘certification’ suited the context instead.

In the pilot study, six constructs had Cronbach’s alpha values below .70. Four were motivational factors: fallback career α = .62; bludging α = .60; admission into teacher education α = .52; and time for teacher education studies α = .58. All item translations were further checked and discussed; seven items were added with the aim of improving reliabilities. Extra items were for fallback career “I was not accepted into my first enrolment choice to another program”; bludging “as a teacher I will have more free time” and “as a teacher I will have time to do other things”; admission into teacher education “it was less difficult to gain entry into the teacher education program” and “the teacher education program was easier to get into”; time for teacher education studies “the number of years in teacher education is shorter compared to other programs” and “teacher education takes less time to complete than other programs”.


Table 1 Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for motivation factors

Cro

nbac

h’s α

Fa

ctor

s n

item

s Sa

mpl

e ite

m

(Ori

gina

l Eng

lish

+ n

ew it

ems)

W

att a

nd R

icha

rdso

n (2

007)

Pi

lot

stud

y M

ain

stud

y

“I c

hose

teac

her e

duca

tion

beca

use.

..”

A

bilit

y 3

…

teac

hing

is a

car

eer s

uite

d to

my

abili

ties

.82

.89

.83

Intri

nsic

val

ue

3

… I

am in

tere

sted

in te

achi

ng

.59

.89

.88

…

I w

as u

nsur

e of

wha

t car

eer I

wan

ted

Fallb

ack

care

er

4

… I

was

not

acc

epte

d in

to m

y fir

st e

nrol

men

t cho

ice

to a

noth

er p

rogr

ama

.65

.62

.73

…

teac

hing

will

be

a se

cure

job

…

teac

hers

can

bec

ome

a ci

vil s

erva

nta

Job

secu

rity/

care

er p

rogr

essi

on p

rosp

ects

e 9

…

teac

hing

offe

rs g

ood

prom

otio

n pr

ospe

cts

n/ae

n/ae

.91

…

teac

hing

hou

rs w

ill fi

t the

resp

onsi

bilit

ies f

or h

avin

g a

fam

ily

…

I w

ill h

ave

mor

e tim

e to

do

hom

e du

tiesa

Tim

e fo

r fam

ilyf

8

…

as a

teac

her I

will

hav

e le

ngth

y ho

liday

s

.80

.83

.89

...

a te

achi

ng jo

b w

ill a

llow

me

to c

hoos

e w

here

I w

ish

to li

ve

Job

trans

fera

bilit

y 3

…

a te

achi

ng c

ertif

icat

ion

is re

cogn

ised

eve

ryw

here

b .6

9 .7

2 .6

9

Shap

e fu

ture

of c

hild

ren/

adol

esce

ntsd

3

… te

achi

ng w

ill a

llow

me

to h

ave

an im

pact

on

child

ren/

adol

esce

nts

.79

.84

.82

Enha

nce

soci

al e

quity

3

…

teac

hing

will

allo

w m

e to

wor

k ag

ains

t soc

ial d

isad

vant

age

.83

.93

.83

Mak

e so

cial

con

tribu

tion

3

… te

ache

rs m

ake

a w

orth

whi

le so

cial

con

tribu

tion

.82

.81

.83

Wor

k w

ith c

hild

ren/

adol

esce

nts

4

… I

wan

t a jo

b th

at in

volv

es w

orki

ng w

ith c

hild

ren/

adol

esce

nts

.88

.84

.86

Prio

r tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

es

4

… I

have

had

insp

iratio

nal t

each

ers

.87

.83

.82

…

my

fam

ily th

ink

I sho

uld

beco

me

a te

ache

r So

cial

influ

ence

s 7

…

my

pare

nts a

re te

ache

rsa

.82

.79

.82

Not

es: I

tem

s for

all

fact

ors

wer

e ra

ted

on a

scal

e fro

m 1

(not

at a

ll im

port

ant)

to 7

(ext

rem

ely

impo

rtant

). To

tal i

tem

s for

ana

lysi

s: 6

5.

a Add

ition

al it

ems t

o or

igin

al fa

ctor

s. b M

odifi

ed it

em o

f the

exi

stin

g m

easu

res.

The

orig

inal

scal

e us

ed te

achi

ng q

ualif

icat

ion;

in th

e In

done

sian

con

text

, the

term

teac

hing

cer

tific

atio

n is

com

mon

ly u

sed.

c C

ronb

ach’

s α v

alue

s wer

e in

adeq

uate

, the

se fa

ctor

s wer

e im

prov

ed in

the

mai

n st

udy

by re

visi

ng th

e ite

m w

ordi

ngs.

d Del

eted

fact

or b

ased

on

CFA

resu

lt (s

ee a

lso

Wat

t et a

l., 2

012;

Gra

tacó

s Cas

acub

erta

, 201

4)

e In th

e pi

lot s

tudy

job

secu

rity

α =

.78

and

care

er p

rogr

essi

on p

rosp

ects

α =

.92.

f In

the

pilo

t stu

dy ti

me

for f

amily

α =

.83

and

blud

ging

α =

.60.


Table 1 Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for motivation factors (continued)

Cro

nbac

h’s α

Fa

ctor

s n

item

s Sa

mpl

e ite

m

(Ori

gina

l Eng

lish

+ n

ew it

ems)

W

att a

nd R

icha

rdso

n (2

007)

Pi

lot

stud

y M

ain

stud

y

Addi

tiona

l fac

tors

:

Seco

nd jo

b 3

…

as a

teac

her I

can

do

casu

al w

ork

afte

r sch

ool h

ours

n/

a .8

6 .8

6 R

elig

ious

influ

ence

s 3

…

my

relig

ion

sugg

ests

that

bei

ng a

teac

her i

s a n

oble

pro

fess

ion

n/a

.70

.82

Tuiti

on fe

e fo

r tea

cher

edu

catio

n 2

…

tuiti

on fe

e fo

r tea

cher

edu

catio

n is

affo

rdab

le c

ompa

red

to o

ther

pr

ogra

ms

n/a

.88

.87

Adm

issi

on in

to te

ache

r edu

catio

n 4

…

ent

ry in

to te

ache

r edu

catio

n w

as le

ss c

ompe

titiv

e th

an o

ther

pro

gram

s n/

a .5

2c .8

6 Ti

me

for t

each

er e

duca

tion

studi

es

3

… w

aitin

g pe

riod

to g

et a

teac

hing

job

is sh

orte

r com

pare

d to

oth

er

prof

essi

ons

n/a

.58c

.74

Not

es: I

tem

s for

all

fact

ors w

ere

rate

d on

a sc

ale

from

1 (n

ot a

t all

impo

rtan

t) to

7 (e

xtre

mel

y im

porta

nt).

Tota

l ite

ms f

or a

naly

sis:

65.

a A

dditi

onal

item

s to

orig

inal

fact

ors.

b Mod

ified

item

of t

he e

xist

ing

mea

sure

s. Th

e or

igin

al sc

ale

used

teac

hing

qua

lific

atio

n; in

the

Indo

nesi

an c

onte

xt, t

he te

rm te

achi

ng c

ertif

icat

ion

is c

omm

only

use

d.

c Cro

nbac

h’s α

val

ues w

ere

inad

equa

te, t

hese

fact

ors w

ere

impr

oved

in th

e m

ain

stud

y by

revi

sing

the

item

wor

ding

s. d D

elet

ed fa

ctor

bas

ed o

n C

FA re

sult

(see

als

o W

att e

t al.,

201

2; G

rata

cós C

asac

uber

ta, 2

014)

e In

the

pilo

t stu

dy jo

b se

curi

ty α

= .7

8 an

d ca

reer

pro

gres

sion

pro

spec

ts α

= .9

2.

f In th

e pi

lot s

tudy

tim

e fo

r fam

ily α

= .8

3 an

d bl

udgi

ng α

= .6

0.


Table 2 Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for perceptions factors

Cro

nbac

h’s α

Fa

ctor

s n

item

s Sa

mpl

e ite

m

(Ori

gina

l Eng

lish

+ n

ew it

ems)

W

att a

nd R

icha

rdso

n (2

007)

Pi

lot

stud

y M

ain

stud

y

Expe

rtise

4

Do

you

thin

k te

achi

ng re

quire

s hig

h le

vels

of e

xper

t kno

wle

dge?

.7

3 .6

7 .8

7 D

o yo

u th

ink

teac

hing

is a

stre

ssfu

l job

?a D

iffic

ulty

3

Do

you

thin

k te

achi

ng is

a to

ugh

job?

a .7

3 .3

7b .7

8

Soci

al st

atus

6

Do

you

belie

ve te

achi

ng is

a w

ell-r

espe

cted

car

eer?

.9

0 .8

4 .8

7 D

o yo

u th

ink

teac

hers

ear

n a

good

sala

ry?

Sala

ry

3 D

o yo

u th

ink

teac

hers

get

mor

e in

cent

ives

(e.g

., he

alth

insu

ranc

e, fa

mily

allo

wan

ce,

pens

ions

)?a

.94

.86

.76

Soci

al d

issu

asio

n 3

Did

oth

ers i

nflu

ence

you

to c

onsid

er c

aree

rs o

ther

than

teac

hing

? .6

0 .7

3 .7

2 Sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith c

hoic

e 2

How

satis

fied

are

you

with

the

choi

ce o

f tea

chin

g as

a c

aree

r?c

.92

.83

.84

Addi

tiona

l fac

tor:

Med

ia d

issu

asio

n 2

Hav

e yo

u be

en a

ffect

ed b

y m

edia

repo

rting

abo

ut te

ache

rs’ l

ivin

g co

nditi

ons?

n/

a .9

1 .8

7

Not

es: I

tem

s for

all

fact

ors w

ere

rate

d on

a sc

ale

from

1 (n

ot a

t all)

to 7

(ext

rem

ely)

. Tot

al it

ems:

23.

a A

dditi

onal

item

s to

orig

inal

fact

ors.

b Cro

nbac

h’s α

val

ue fr

om th

e pi

lot s

tudy

was

una

ccep

tabl

e. T

he fa

ctor

was

impr

oved

in th

e m

ain

stud

y by

revi

sing

the

trans

latio

n an

d ad

ding

mor

e ite

ms.

c The

FIT-

Cho

ice

orig

inal

stat

emen

t was

How

satis

fied

are

you

with

you

r cho

ice

of b

ecom

ing

a te

ache

r?


Two perception factors also had low Cronbach’s alpha in the pilot study: expertise α = .67 and difficulty α = .37. Translation into Bahasa Indonesia for one expertise item was revised (C15 “Do you think teachers need highly specialised knowledge”, the translation for “highly specialised knowledge” changed to “special knowledge”) due to there being no equivalent meaning. Two difficulty items were revised: C2 “Do you think teachers have a heavy workload?” to “Do you think teaching is a stressful job?”, and C11 “Do you think teaching is hard work?” to “Do you think teaching is exhausting work?”, and one item added “Do you think teaching is a tough job?”.

Table 3 Response rates

University N Students Response

rate (%) N Surveys

Present Participated Complete Incompletec

State University of Jakartaa 378 361 95.50 328 33

State University of Yogyakartaa

242 235 97.10 223 12

Sanata Dharma Universityb 196 189 96.43 184 5

Atmajaya Universityb 69 69 100 67 2

Notes: aPublic university; b private university; cexcluded in analyses due to high missing data (> 50% items)

Table 4 Distribution of participants across teaching programs and school levels (N = 802)

Teaching program School level n %

Mathematics S 197 24.56

Chemistry S 12 1.50

Physics S 27 3.37

Biology S 25 3.12

Guidance and counselling S 20 2.49

English language S 128 15.96

Primary school teacher P 293 36.53

Early childhood EC 65 8.11

Special education SE 30 3.74

Missing information 5 0.62

Notes: S: Secondary school; P: Primary school; EC: Early childhood; SE: Special education


3 Main study

3.1 Methodology

Participants were studying at the State University of Jakarta (n = 328, 40.90%), the State University of Yogyakarta (n = 223, 27.81%), Sanata Dharma University (n = 184, 22.94%), and Atmajaya University (n = 67, 8.35%). The mean age of participants was 21.61 years (SD = 2.31), consisting of mainly women (n = 667, 83.16 %). Referring to their religious background, 543 (67.71%) were Muslim, 192 (23.94%) Catholic, 56 (6.98%) Protestant, 4 (0.50%) Buddhist, 4 (0.50%) Hindu, and three did not answer. Over one-third (n = 307, 38.28%) were undertaking paid work during their study, another one-third (n = 269, 33.54%) had work experience in the past, the remainder (n = 224, 27.93%) had not worked at all, and two did not answer. Among those who were either currently or previously employed, 530 (92.01%) had teaching experience and only 45 (7.81%) had non-teaching experience and one did not specify. Response rates varied due to different classroom locations and times of data collection, but all response rates were above 95% of those present and spread evenly across the four universities with no systematic pattern for missing data. Specifically, the response rates were 95.50% for the State University of Jakarta, 97.10% for the State University of Yogyakarta, 96.43% for Sanata Dharma University, and 100% for Atmajaya University.

Following university and departmental ethical approvals, explanatory letters were distributed along with paper-based questionnaires to final-year undergraduate teacher education students during October–November 2011. Students who had participated in the pilot were excluded from the main study. Two public and two private universities were selected because they had reputable teacher education programs for around 50 years. In terms of quality, there are no strict selections or screening processes for teacher education candidates and the quality of graduates may vary across universities. Teacher education institutions have different enrolment criteria and entrance tests, particularly between public and private universities. Enrolment tests for public universities are organised nation-wide, private universities manage their selection tests independently.

4 Results

4.1 Motivations

Two CFAs and model fits were conducted using Amos 20, one for motivations and one for perceptions, using full responses (Ns = 540 motivations; 728 perceptions)3. The proposed theorised model was tested using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation (see Harrington, 2009), which in large samples is asymptotically unbiased, to yield efficient and consistent estimates (Kline, 2011). Fit indices for the models were examined, then modification indices (MIs). The fit indices reported are the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean-square residual (SRMR). The cut-off criteria were TLI and CFI ≥ .95, RMSEA ≤ .06, and SRMR ≤ .08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999).


Table 5 Item wordings and MIs between paired item measurement errors

Item

1

Ite

m 2

M

I

Mot

ivat

ions

Fr

eed

for e

stim

atio

n

B17

I h

ave

had

insp

iratio

nal t

each

ers

B

30

I hav

e ha

d go

od te

ache

rs a

s rol

e-m

odel

s 17

0.05

9 B

44

I hav

e re

lativ

es w

ho a

re te

ache

rs

B

34

My

pare

nts a

re te

ache

rs

130.

316

B5

I hav

e th

e qu

aliti

es o

f a g

ood

teac

her

B

19

I hav

e go

od te

achi

ng sk

ills

63.7

86

B50

Te

achi

ng o

ffers

goo

d pr

omot

ion

pros

pect

s

B56

Te

achi

ng p

rovi

des a

cle

ar p

athw

ay fo

r car

eer d

evel

opm

ent

58.8

52

B3

My

frien

ds th

ink

I sho

uld

beco

me

a te

ache

r

B40

Pe

ople

I’ve

wor

ked

with

thin

k I s

houl

d be

com

e a

teac

her

49.0

20

B4

As a

teac

her I

will

hav

e a

leng

thy

holid

ays

B

18

As a

teac

her I

will

hav

e a

shor

t wor

king

day

37

.913

B

24

My

fam

ily th

ink

I sho

uld

beco

me

a te

ache

r

B40

Pe

ople

I’ve

wor

ked

with

thin

k I s

houl

d be

com

e a

teac

her

67.6

15

B2

Part-

time

teac

hing

cou

ld a

llow

mor

e fa

mily

tim

e

B16

Te

achi

ng h

ours

will

fit w

ith th

e re

spon

sibi

lity

of h

avin

g a

fam

ily

30.8

39

Not

free

d fo

r est

imat

ion

B5

I hav

e th

e qu

aliti

es o

f a g

ood

teac

her

B

6 Te

achi

ng a

llow

s me

to p

rovi

de a

serv

ice

to so

ciet

y 29

.985

B

11

I was

uns

ure

wha

t car

eer I

wan

ted

B

15

Entry

into

teac

her e

duca

tion

was

less

com

petit

ive

than

oth

er p

rogr

ams

29.5

85

B58

M

y re

ligio

n su

gges

ts th

at I

can

serv

e ot

hers

thro

ugh

teac

hing

B57

I h

ave

frien

ds w

ho a

re te

ache

rs

28.3

53

B6

Teac

hing

allo

ws m

e to

pro

vide

a se

rvic

e to

soci

ety

B

10

I wan

t to

help

chi

ldre

n/ad

oles

cent

s lea

rn

28.1

98

B45

A

teac

hing

job

will

allo

w m

e to

cho

ose

whe

re I

wis

h to

live

B46

Te

achi

ng h

as a

car

eer ‘

ladd

er’ I

can

clim

b 27

.451

B

22

A te

achi

ng c

ertif

icat

ion

is re

cogn

ised

ever

ywhe

re

B

21

I kno

w p

eopl

e w

ho a

re te

ache

rs

27.3

36

B25

Te

achi

ng c

an p

rovi

de a

life

-long

car

eer

B

24

My

fam

ily th

ink

I sho

uld

beco

me

a te

ache

r 27

.329

B

29

Scho

ol h

olid

ays w

ill fi

t in

with

fam

ily c

omm

itmen

ts

B

28

I can

spre

ad re

ligio

us m

essa

ges i

n m

y te

achi

ng

25.5

67

B19

I h

ave

good

teac

hing

skill

s

B20

Te

ache

rs m

ake

a w

orth

whi

le so

cial

con

tribu

tion

22.4

40

Perc

eptio

ns

Free

d fo

r est

imat

ion

C12

D

o yo

u be

lieve

teac

hing

is a

wel

l-res

pect

ed c

aree

r?

C

13

Do

you

thin

k te

ache

rs fe

el th

eir o

ccup

atio

n ha

s hig

h so

cial

stat

us?

33.6

87

Not

free

d fo

r est

imat

ion

C4

Do

you

belie

ve te

ache

rs a

re p

erce

ived

as p

rofe

ssio

nals

?

C5

Do

you

thin

k te

ache

rs h

ave

high

mor

ale?

16

5.72

2 C

6 D

o yo

u th

ink

teac

hing

is a

hig

hly

skill

ed m

otiv

atio

n?

C

5 D

o yo

u th

ink

teac

hers

hav

e hi

gh m

oral

e?

50.0

52


Table 6 Latent correlations among FIT-Choice and new motivational factors

Fact

or

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1 A

bilit

y -

2

Intri

nsic

val

ue

.892

-

3 Fa

llbac

k ca

reer

–.

141

–.23

6 -

4

Job

secu

rity

.797

.6

03

.026

-

5 Ti

me

for f

amily

.6

35

.427

.1

61

.750

-

6

Seco

nd jo

ba .5

78

.380

.0

78

.695

.7

94

-

7

Job

trans

fera

bilit

y .7

00

.464

.2

42

.866

.8

23

.707

-

8

Enha

nce

soci

al e

quity

.6

49

.542

–.

038

.501

.4

16

.441

.4

22

-

9

Mak

e so

cial

con

tribu

tion

.766

.7

31

–.19

1 .6

30

.430

.4

29

.475

.8

01

-

10

Wor

k w

ith c

hild

ren/

adol

esce

nts

.797

.7

61

–.19

9 .6

12

.464

.4

33

.471

.8

20

.876

-

11

Prio

r tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

es

.835

.7

09

–.12

2 .7

11

.504

.5

23

.614

.7

27

.826

.7

79

-

12

Soci

al in

fluen

ces

.718

.5

43

.206

.8

23

.703

.6

38

.892

.4

88

.601

.5

61

.725

-

13

Rel

igio

us in

fluen

cesa

.612

.5

76

–.00

7 .6

22

.550

.4

68

.584

.7

69

.796

.6

63

.715

.6

61

-

14

Tuiti

on fe

e fo

r tea

cher

edu

catio

na .2

74

.199

.2

70

.390

.4

24

.355

.4

80

.306

.1

99

.225

.2

63

.369

.3

39

-

15

A

dmis

sion

into

teac

her e

duca

tiona

.226

.0

93

.474

.2

78

.366

.2

97

.445

.1

37

.070

.0

68

.162

.3

25

.215

.5

88

-

16

Tim

e fo

r tea

cher

edu

catio

na .3

36

.184

.3

97

.498

.5

80

.457

.7

05

.251

.2

08

.202

.2

72

.542

.3

82

.759

.8

50

-

Not

es: I

talic

num

bers

den

ote

stat

istic

al si

gnifi

canc

e (p

< .0

1).

a New

fact

ors.


Table 7 Latent correlations among FIT-Choice and new perceptions about teaching factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Expertise - 2 Difficulty .108 - 3 Social status .620 .045 - 4 Salary .191 .054 .624 - 5 Social dissuasion -.160 .392 -.093 .046 - 6 Media dissuasiona .076 .210 .229 .190 .468 - 7 Satisfaction with choice .547 -.154 .684 .399 -.136 .205 -

Notes: Italic numbers denote statistical significance (p < .01). a New factors.

The estimated 19-factor motivations for teaching CFA model consisted of 69 items, and produced an inadmissible solution, likely due to high latent correlations between factors time for family and bludging4 (.952), shape future of children/adolescents5 and work with children/adolescents (.982), shape future of children/adolescents and enhance social equity (.926), shape future of children/adolescents and make social contribution (.912), and job security and career progression prospects (.936). The model was revised by combining time for family and bludging items as per the FIT-Choice scale, combining job security and the added factor career progression prospects (MCC scale; Watt and Richardson, 2006), and omitting shape future of children/adolescents (the latter as in Watt et al., 2012; Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014). The respecified model showed marginal fit, χ2 (1941, N = 540) = 5432.228, p < .001, TLI = .846, CFI = .861, RMSEA = .058, and SRMR = .060. There were high MIs between item B52 and each of B7 (152.650); B1 (104.155); B12 (95.034); B43 (57.616); and B37 (37.679). Item B52 under factor job security was therefore omitted (“teaching is a fulfilling career”); this also improved Cronbach’s alpha for job security from .908 to .914. Item pairs in the respective model with high MIs were checked. In cases where similar meanings were found between item pairs, error covariances were freed and the model was sequentially re-estimated. In total, eight measurement error covariances were estimated; in each case, model fit indices appeared improved (see Table 5). MIs for measurement errors could not be freed for estimation where item pairs measured very different items and could not be defended on substantive grounds.

The final motivations model fit consisted of 16 factors and 65 items χ2 (1887, N = 540) = 4706.702, p < .001, TLI = .873, CFI = .885, RMSEA = .053, and SRMR = .055. Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated for all factors. Reliability coefficients that were low in the pilot study were improved in the main study: fallback career α =.73; admission into teacher education α = .86; time for teacher education studies α = .74; expertise α = .87 and difficulty α = .78. Only one factor had alpha slightly below .70 (job transferability α = .69).

Most motivations for teaching factors were significantly intercorrelated (Table 6) especially between social utility values (make social contribution and work with children/adolescents, φ = .88), also between ability and intrinsic value (φ = .89), admission into teacher education and time for teacher education (φ = .85), and second job and time for family (φ = .79). Religious influences had significant positive correlations with all social utility values; fallback career was negatively but weakly


correlated with intrinsic value, make social contribution, and work with children/adolescents, but, positively correlated with the three teacher education factors: admission, time spent and tuition fee.

Observed factor scores for the three social utility values were rated high (make social contribution, work with children/adolescents, and enhance social equity). Next were prior teaching and learning experiences and intrinsic value. Five factors under personal utility value were rated relatively high (religious influences, job security/career progression prospects, second job, time for family/bludging, job transferability). Tuition fee and time for teacher education were rated above the midpoint, whereas admission into teacher education was slightly below it. Fallback career was rated the lowest.

Figure 2 Mean ratings for observed motivational factors

6.005.65 5.60 5.44 5.39 5.37 5.34 5.33 5.29

5.024.78 4.74

4.253.84

3.38

2.81

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

mea

n ra

tings

Notes: *Social utility value factors; **personal utility value factors; ***teacher education factors; scale anchors from 1 (not at all important) – 7 (extremely important)

4.2 Perceptions

Another CFA was performed for the FIT-Choice perceptions6 with one additional factor relevant to the Indonesian context (media dissuasion). The proposed seven-factor perceptions about teaching model consisted of 24 items and the data did not fit well, χ2 (233, N = 728) = 1,232.838, p < .001, TLI = .863, CFI = .884, RMSEA = .077, and SRMR = .085. The MIs for item C7 “Do you think teaching is emotionally demanding?” in the difficulty factor indicated problematic cross-loading items on factors including satisfaction (MI = 99.331), social status (MI = 110.242) and expertise (MI = 219.370); therefore C7 was omitted and the model reanalysed. The fit improved, χ2 (211, N = 728) = 893.949, p < .001, TLI = .901, CFI = .917, RMSEA = .067, and SRMR = .048. Item


pairs with high MIs were examined, and the error covariance was freed for one pair of items which contained parallel wording (Table 5). The final fit for 7 factors and 23 items showed χ2 (210, N = 728) = 847.735, p < .001, TLI = .907, CFI = .923, RMSEA = .065, and SRMR = .045. Most participants perceived teaching as a highly skilled occupation requiring high levels of expertise, with high social status, slightly above average earnings, and moderately tough (see Figure 3). The highest correlations among perceptions about teaching factors were between expertise and social status (φ = .62), social status and satisfaction with choice (φ = .68), and social status and salary (φ = .62).

Figure 3 Mean ratings for observed perceptions of teaching and career choice satisfaction factors

6.32

5.57

4.584.39 4.29

3.61

5.51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Expertise* Social status** Salary** Media dissuasion ***

Difficulty* Social dissuasion***

Satisfaction with choice

mea

n ra

tings

Notes: *Task demand factors; **task return factors; ***dissuasion factors; scale anchors from 1 (not at all) – 7 (extremely)

5 Discussion

5.1 Scale validity and reliability

Our main objective was to test the validity and reliability of the translated and extended Indonesian FIT-Choice scale among a large sample of Indonesian teacher education students. Results supported the construct validity of the scale, by deleting item B52, omitting factor shape future of children/adolescents (consistent with Watt et al., 2012), merging time for family/bludging items [as per the original FIT-Choice scale; (Watt and Richardson, 2007)], and job security/career progression prospects due to extremely high latent correlation. Career progression prospect had been added from the MCC scale (Watt and Richardson, 2006), with similar findings found by Watt (in press) among adolescent Australian youth. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients indicated good to acceptable internal consistencies for all final factors.


The FIT-Choice scale factor structure was essentially confirmed, first for the original scale, then for the Indonesian adapted version with addition of new context factors. In the current study, the very high latent correlation between intrinsic value and ability motivations (φ = .89) paralleled findings in Spain (φ= .74; Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014) and Germany (φ = .86; König and Rothland, 2012); whereas in Croatia (φ = .64; Jugović et al., 2012) and Australia (φ = .68; Watt and Richardson, 2007) the correlation was less strong. This suggests that future teachers’ ability motivations were highly interwoven with their interest in and enjoyment of teaching in the present study.

5.2 Motivations of Indonesian teacher education students

From 12 original FIT-Choice and five additional motivation factors, all three social utility values were rated highly: make social contribution was the highest rated, followed by work with children/adolescents, and enhance social equity. In a collectivist country like Indonesia, it was not surprising that social utility values were rated high similar to FIT-Choice studies in other collectivist cultures reviewed earlier. Fallback career was the lowest rated motivation in the Indonesian setting, indicating that students entered teacher education as a positive choice, similar to Australia (Watt and Richardson, 2007), Germany (König and Rothland, 2012), Croatia (Jugović et al., 2012), Turkey (Kılınç et al., 2012), Spain (Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014), the USA and China (Lin et al., 2012), that teaching was not a second choice career. It was interesting that intrinsic value was rated higher than personal utility values despite the potential benefits of teachers becoming civil servants in Indonesia.

This study offers new insights to the literature by taking religion into account as one of the motivational drivers, as well as second job and three teacher education factors. Because most religions respect teaching as a career choice, it was not surprising that religious influences were rated high and had strong correlations with all factors except fallback career. The new second job factor was also rated high, meaning that most participants intended to take on a teaching career together with other employment. As most participants in this study were women, domestic housework might be a reason for choosing teaching due to the short work hours. Other new factors tuition fee for teacher education, time for teacher education studies and less competitiveness of admission into teacher education were rated moderately.

5.3 Perceptions about teaching

In the Indonesian context, educational practices such as teacher and student interactions are influenced by social factors such as rank, social status, and age (Dardjowidjojo, 2006). People with higher rank, social status and age receive more respect than others. Teaching is considered a highly regarded position and teachers hold responsibility equal to parents during school hours. Most participants perceived teaching as a highly expert career with high social status and moderate salary, possibly due to the new Teacher Law announced by the government in 2005 allowing teachers with a four-year university degree and teaching certification to receive double the basic salary and be eligible to apply for a civil servant position. Findings from this study confirm that teaching was perceived as a highly demanding occupation; not only do teachers need to be


knowledgeable in the subject matter and able to communicate with students in the classroom, they also experience high expectations and pressure from the society as “the agents largely responsible for student success in all aspects” [Luciana, (2004), p.1]. Social dissuasion was rated a little below the midpoint, and had been found to be moderate among samples from Australia, Germany, Norway (Watt et al., 2012), Turkey (Kılınç et al., 2012), Croatia (Jugović et al., 2012), Germany (König and Rothland, 2012), the Netherlands (Fokkens-Bruinsma and Canrinus, 2014), the USA and China (Lin et al., 2012), and low in Switzerland (Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012). Interestingly, the new factor of media dissuasion was rated moderately high in the present study, in line with the negative portrayal of the teaching profession in the mass media, which likely discourages people from choosing teaching as a career path.

5.4 Significance and future directions

As the research applied an existing measure of teaching motivations and perceptions, findings contribute to the international comparisons concerning choosing a teaching career, with the addition of culturally specific factors: religious influences, teacher education, and intention to have a second job. The study involved a large number of student teachers from different sociocultural backgrounds and religious affiliations studying at public and private universities in Indonesia. However, there are 32 states and 342 private teacher education institutions spread across 34 provinces of Indonesia with students coming from various ethnic backgrounds, thus the findings cannot be simply generalised to the entire Indonesian archipelago. Further, the analyses rely on cross-sectional data, and more detailed longitudinal research is needed to follow up participants’ motivations and perceptions after graduation, particularly in the first few years of teaching, to discern whether they predict remaining in or discontinuing from the profession.

The findings provide a basis for the improvement of teacher education programs and teacher policies in Indonesia, and are of importance for preparing future teachers and understanding teachers who have entered the profession. For example, do teachers take a second job while teaching, and does it affect their teaching commitments and teaching quality, particularly during early career? Studies in the literature suggest that teachers hold second jobs mainly for monetary reasons (Betts, 2004; Parham and Gordon, 2011), and that this impacts the quality of their teaching due to lack of time preparing materials, attending professional development courses, and undertaking leadership roles in schools.

As in other FIT-Choice study contexts, participants in Indonesia chose to enter teacher education due to positive motivations, not because of lack of other options. Because Indonesia needs more teachers in rural and remote areas to evenly distribute placements across the nation, the finding that social utility values were among the highest motivations is important. If these teachers are eager to benefit the socially disadvantaged, provide a service to society and help children and adolescents, hopefully this may attract them to teach in such locations. It certainly appeared that teaching was perceived as a career high in social status, and attractive to secondary school graduates who enter teacher education and plan to work as qualified teachers upon completion of their studies.


6 Conclusions

This study was the first to translate and apply the FIT-Choice scale in the Indonesian setting and has contributed to the growing literature about teaching motivations, by providing a validated Indonesian translation of the FIT-Choice scale and first indications of mean-level factor ratings, including for six added culturally relevant factors. From the theoretical perspective, this study supported the same FIT-Choice factor structure in a different context, and expanded the FIT-Choice theoretical framework to add Indonesian culturally specific factors: second job (opportunity to work another job), religious influences (influence from religion to enter teacher education), tuition fee for teacher education (cheaper), admission into teacher education (less competitive), time for teacher education (shorter, less waiting time to get a job), and media dissuasion (mass media influence to not choose teaching). These were all effectively measured by new subscales, and found to be relevant in the Indonesian setting. From the applied perspective, the findings are noteworthy as the basis for preparing future teachers in Indonesia. The fact that teaching is known to be an occupation requiring high levels of expert knowledge is valuable. This can be used to continue to improve the image of Indonesian teachers and raise their status to that of other expert professionals, to attract top graduates to become future teachers. The decision of the Indonesian government to increase the salary of qualified teachers and provide them with pension benefits as civil servants may improve the teaching career to offer respect, status and income comparable to those offered by other attractive graduate careers. The difficulties of attracting and retaining quality teachers in the rural and more remote parts of the Indonesian archipelago are likely to continue to be similar to those experienced by many countries around the world, and the geographical dispersion of a very large population presents special difficulties for Indonesia. A better understanding of teachers’ motivations and associated contextual influences should prove useful in continuing to develop policies designed to attract and retain talented and motivated people in the teaching profession.

References Berger, J-L. and D’Ascoli, Y. (2012) ‘Becoming a VET teacher as a second career: Investigating

the determinants of career choice and their relation to perceptions about prior occupation’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.317–341, doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700046.

Betts, S.C. (2004) ‘Gender differences in multiple jobholding: moonlighting among teachers’, Journal of Business & Economics Research, Vol. 2, No. 8, pp.25–34.

Chang, M.C., Shaeffer, S., Al-Samarrai, S., Ragatz, A.B., de Ree, J. and Stevenson, R. (2014) Teacher Reform in Indonesia: The Role of Politics and Evidence in Policy Making, World Bank, Washington, D.C., doi: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9829-6.

Conley, A.M. (2012) ‘Patterns of motivation beliefs: combining achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp.32–47, doi: 10.1037/a0026042.

Dardjowidjojo, S. (2006) ‘The implementability of western approaches into eastern societies’, Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.1–20.

Eccles [Parsons], J., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece, J.L. and Midgley, C. (1983) ‘Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors’, in Spence, J.T. (Ed.): Achievement and Achievement Motives, pp.75–146, Freeman, San Francisco.


Eren, A. and Tezel, K.V. (2010) ‘Factors influencing teaching choice, professional plans about teaching, and future time perspective: a mediational analysis’, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp.1416–1428, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010. 05.001.

Fokkens-Bruinsma, M. and Canrinus, E.T. (2014) ‘Motivation for becoming a teacher and engagement with the profession: evidence from different contexts’, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 65, pp.65–74, doi: 10.1016/ j.ijer.2013.09.012.

Gao, X. and Trent, J. (2009) ‘Understanding mainland Chinese students’ motivations for choosing teacher education programmes in Hong Kong’, Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.145–159, doi: 10.1080/02607470902771037.

Gratacós Casacuberta, G. (2014) Estudio sobre las motivaciones en la elección de ser maestro (Research on motivations for choosing teaching as a career), Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona [online] http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/134986 (accessed 8 August 2014).

Harrington, D. (2009) Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning, Routledge, New York, NY. Ho, I.T. and Hau, K-T. (2014) ‘East meets west: teacher motivation in the Chinese context’, in

Richardson, P.W., Karabenick, S.A. and Watt, H.M.G. (Eds.): Teacher Motivation: Theory and Practice, pp.133–149, Routledge, New York, NY.

Hu, L-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999) ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.1–55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

Jalal, F., Samani, M., Chang, M.C., Stevenson, R., Ragatz, A.B. and Negara, S.D. (2009) Teacher Certification in Indonesia: A Strategy for Teacher Quality Improvement, Ministry of National Education, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Jarvis, J. and Woodrow, D. (2005) ‘Reasons for choosing a teacher training course’, Research in Education, Vol. 73, pp.29–35.

Jugović, I., Marušić, I., Ivanec, T.P. and Vidović, V.V. (2012) ‘Motivation and personality of preservice teachers in Croatia’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.271–287, doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700044.

Kılınç, A., Watt, H.M.G. and Richardson, P.W. (2012) ‘Factors influencing teaching choice in Turkey’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.199–226, doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700048.

Klassen, R.M., Al-Dhafri, S., Hannok, W. and Betts, S.M. (2011) ‘Investigating pre-service teacher motivation across cultures using the teachers’ ten statements test’, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.579–588, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.10.012.

Kline, R.B. (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.

König, J. and Rothland, M. (2012) ‘Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: effects on general pedagogical knowledge during initial teacher education’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.289–315, doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700045.

Kyriacou, C. and Kunc, R. (2007) ‘Beginning teachers’ expectations of teaching’, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp.1246–1257, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.20 06.06.002.

Kyriacou, C., Kunc, R., Stephens, P. and Hultgren, A. (2003) ‘Student teachers’ expectations of teaching as a career in England and Norway’, Educational Review, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp.255–263, doi: 10.1080/0013191032000118910.

Lin, E., Shi, Q., Wang, J., Zhang, S. and Hui, L. (2012) ‘Initial motivations for teaching: comparison between preservice teachers in the United States and China’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.227–248, doi: 10.1080/1359866x.2012.700047.

Luciana, L. (2004) ‘Developing standards for language teacher education programs in Indonesia: professionalizing or losing in complexity?’, TEFLIN Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.27–41.


Malderez, A., Hobson, A.J., Tracey, L. and Kerr, K. (2007) ‘Becoming a student teacher: core features of the experience’, European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.225–248, doi: 10.1080/02619760701486068.

Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991) ‘Culture and the self: implication for cognition, emotion and motivation’, Psychological Review, Vol. 98, No. 2, pp.224–253, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011) Building a High-Quality Teaching Profession: Lessons from Around the World [online] http://www2.ed. gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/back ground.pdf (accessed 15 April 2011).

Parham, J.N. and Gordon, S.P. (2011) ‘Moonlighting: a harsh reality for many teachers’, The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 92, No. 5, pp.47–51, doi: 10.2307/27922510.

Perez, T., Cromley, J.G. and Kaplan, A. (2014) ‘The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp.315–329, doi: 10.1037/a0034027.

Richardson, P.W. and Watt, H.M.G. (2006) ‘Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.27–56, doi: 10.1080/13598660500480290.

Richardson, P.W. and Watt, H.M.G. (2014) ‘Why people choose teaching as a career: an expectancy-value approach to understanding teacher motivation’, in Richardson, P.W., Watt, H.M.G. and Karabenick, S.A. (Eds.): Teacher Motivation: Theory and Practice, pp.3–19, Routledge, New York, NY.

Statistics Indonesia (2010) Population Census, Author, Jakarta [online] http://sp2010.bps.go.id/ index.php/site/tabel?wid=0000000000&tid= 320&fi1=58&fi2=3 (accessed 12 February 2014).

Stuart, V.B. (2000) Reasons for Selecting a Teaching Career and Remaining in the Profession: A Conversation with 10 African American Roanoke City Teachers, Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia [online] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.3.2317&rep=rep1 &type=pdf (accessed 11 April 2013).

Topkaya, E.Z. and Uztosun, M.S. (2012) ‘Choosing teaching as a career: motivations of pre-service English teachers in Turkey’, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.126–134.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2010) The Global Demand for Primary Teachers – 2010 Update [online] http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/ pdf/EducGeneral/Info sheet_No%2 05_Teachers_EN.pdf (accessed 17 November 2010).

Wang, H-H. (2004) ‘Why teach science? Graduate science students’ perceived motivations for choosing teaching as a career in Taiwan’, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.113–128, doi: 10.1080/0950069032000070243.

Watt, H.M.G. (in press) ‘Gender and motivation’, in Wentzel, K. and Miele, D. (Eds.): Handbook of Motivation at School, 2nd ed., Routledge, Taylor & Francis, New York.

Watt, H.M.G. and Richardson, P.W. (2006) Motivations for Career Choice Scale, Unpublished manuscript, Monash University.

Watt, H.M.G. and Richardson, P.W. (2007) ‘Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: development and validation of the FIT-Choice scale’, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp.167–202.

Watt, H.M.G. and Richardson, P.W. (2008) ‘Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers’, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.408–428, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.002.

Watt, H.M.G., Richardson, P.W., Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Beyer, B., Trautwein, U. and Baumert, J. (2012) ‘Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: an international comparison using the FIT-Choice scale’, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp.791–805, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.003.


Wigfield, A. and Cambria, J. (2010) ‘Expectancy-value theory: retrospective and prospective’, in Urdan, T.C. and Karabenick, S. (Eds.): The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 16A, pp.35–70, Emerald, Bingley, U.K.

Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J.S. (1992) ‘The development of achievement task values: a theoretical analysis’, Developmental Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.265–310, doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-P.

Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J.S. (2000) ‘Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.68–81, doi: 10.1006 /ceps.1999.1015.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. and Davis-Kean, P. (2007) ‘Development of achievement motivation’, in Eisenberg, N. (Ed.): Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3, John Wiley, New York, NY.

Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. and Eccles, J.S. (2004) ‘Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural perspective’, in McInerney, D.M. and Etten, S.V. (Eds.): Big Theories Revisited: Research in Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning, pp.165–198, Information Age Publishing Inc., Greenwich, CT.

World Bank (2010) From Pre-Service Training to Retirement: Producing and Maintaining a High-Quality, Efficient, and Motivated Workforce, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Notes 1 Although very few alumni records are available, this issue is often advertised. For instance, a

university website promotes career options for Indonesian language education graduates as teachers, researchers, writers, newspaper journalists and editors, also radio announcers (http://pmb.ums.ac.id/2011/alumni retrieved 1 April 2013).

2 Combined with job security based on high correlation in CFA. 3 A CFA was first conducted to check the factor structure of the original FIT-Choice

motivation factors (ability, intrinsic value, fallback career, job security, time for family, job transferability, enhance social equity, make social contribution, work with children/adolescents, prior teaching and learning experiences, and social influences) omitting all new factors and items. The model consisted of 11 factors and 36 items because shape future of children/adolescents was omitted due to multicollinearity with the other social utility factors, as had been the case previously in two studies (German sample in Watt et al., 2012; Spanish sample, Gratacós Casacuberta, 2014; Swiss vocational sample, Berger and D’Ascoli, 2012). This showed good fit, χ2 (533, N = 540) = 1,369.015, p < .001, TLI = .916, CFI = .929, RMSEA = .054, and SRMR = .050. All Cronbach alphas values were above .70 except fallback career α = .61 and job transferability α = .69.

4 Combined with time for family based on CFA [as in the original FIT-Choice validation, (Watt and Richardson, 2007)].

5 Omitted from final analyses based on CFA due to multicollinearity with 3 other factors: work with children/adolescents, enhance social equity, and make social contribution.

6 A CFA was first performed to check the factor structure of all original FIT-Choice perception factors (expertise, difficulty, social status, salary, social dissuasion, and satisfaction with choice) omitting new factors and items. This model consisted of 6 factors and 19 items and indicated good fit, χ2 (139, N = 728) = 723.927, p < .001, TLI = .891, CFI = .911, RMSEA = .076, and SRMR = .047. All Cronbach alphas values were above .70 except difficulty α = .65.

students’ motivations to become teachers: fit-choice … 2016 ijqre.pdf182 a. suryani et al. the...

Documents